|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
1. Emailed TSS to verify or not my comments about Bear Sterns ownership of
TSS and therefore TS and therefore my hope of faster, better TS development
than under Omega.
Regretfully on this item, you are right and I was wrong. TSS advised a
short time ago that Bear Sterns is only its clearing house. That does not
and should not invalidate my other comments about software alternatives to
TS.
"Regretfully" not because I must admit to a serious error but because it
means that TSS and TS do not currently and unfortunately, have the financial
backing, via ownership at least, of Bear Sterns - which would, I thought,
speed up TS improvements.
2. Sorry if I came across as arrogant to you....no one who knows me
personally has ever accused me of being that way, including folks who have
other reasons to dislike me. Just got a bit uncharacteristically testy over
another person's innuendos about my Ensign software comments and the
thoroughness of my evaluations. Worked my tail off on those, over two year
period. And what I've done with these is every bit of what I claimed.
3. I paid for all use and testing of software (excepting for the same free
trials available to everyone else, and excepting for things or companies for
which I beta test), and received no special consideration that I am aware
of, from any company or person. Also paid for the data feeds costs, if any.
To date I have sought and received zero income from any source for these
efforts. This was done for my own knowledge, and along the way enough other
local traders had enough interest, so did it in a manner that they could use
my lists to do their own evaluations.
Currently plan to convert my spreadsheets into Shareware to make them easier
for others to use. So far I have freely given the copyrighted spreadsheets
to any software company that asked for same, on the condition that these be
used only for internal analysis usage only, not for publication.
These collections of function points could be made into an indexed, scaled
scoring, overall and by groupings of functions. If used by the folks who
test and write software articles for magazines, could become sort of a
trading software standard rating. Few software makers would like that
because it would make their warts hard to hide. I'd like that to happen,
because it would give stronger incentive to the software makers to improve
their products faster.
4. Regarding what is important to each trader and therefore that each trader
may have his/her own opinions about software works best for him/her, already
posted that same opinion earlier.
The three spreadsheets of 1,800+ function points are designed to be used by
others who can input their own weightings for each of those function points,
then put in their own judgment about how well each software tool
accomplishes each function point. Requires lot of work, but trading software
tools are very complicated.
5. It is good to point out errors, whether of forum etiquette or facts. Most
such errors are made unintentionally.
It is extremely easy to misread the emotional intent of emails. Many
emails, including mine, are written quickly without careful rewriting or
editing for possible misunderstandings...unlike what would be done if the
same info was being prepared for publishing. There just ain't enough time to
make each email bullet proof from unintended interpretations by others.
6. If there is interest, I can post my ranked top 5 or so ratings for real
time trading software in each of these basic categories of software: (a)
Charting and Studies (b) Order Execution (c) Scanning and Filtering.
There seems to be some tiers of capabilities. The top 5 to 7 of each. Then
a middle level of so-so packages. Then the rest. There is movement between
the lower two tiers. Haven't seen any member of the lower two tiers.break
into the top tier yet, but a couple may have done that since I last tested
them. eSignal appears to have made major improvements, for example.
IMVHO, there are no good end-of-day software packages....TC2000/Net +
Advanced Analyzer + MetaStock would make a killer package if their strengths
were combined and weaknesses eliminated, but there is no such thing. AMI
Broker is gaining ground quickly on those three.
TCNet is neat and can be addictive. Advanced Analyzer screens stocks the
best. MetaStock's underlying 1984 file structure drives me nuts, it is the
cause of MetaStock's quirks and kludgy look and feel, and its unnecessarily
large learning curve....but its studies and add-ons keep it viable until
Equis/Reuters finish rewriting it to use a decent data base structure.
7. Lastly, haven't heckled anyone at this nor at any other forum or web
site. So am mystified as to why you transformed my last name in one of your
posted emails.
Everyone of us makes frequent mistakes, so we are all easy targets for those
so inclined.
Jimmy, how about contributing something positive for a change, sharing
something to help the rest of us? Its easier and less risky to be a critic,
of course. But that gets old, quickly
So, what have you to contribute?
Vince Heiker
Flower Mound, Texas
---
|